DCsportsfan53 Posted August 7, 2007 Share Posted August 7, 2007 Saw this article today and thought it was a very interesting read. Try and read it with an open mind without judgements and just take it for what it's worth. I'd ask that people actually read it but I'm pretty sure that won't happen, it'll devolve into mischaracterizations based on 2 sentences read pretty quick but try and not comment unless you read the article. ATLANTA — An empty chair sits in a ranch-style home in a city long divided. It's a comfortable chair, positioned in front of a large high-def television, and it belongs to Juanita Abernathy, one of the last living heroes of the 1960s civil rights movement.She'll be here in just a moment to talk about Michael Vick. Until then, look at the family photographs in Abernathy's den. There's her husband, Ralph, with Martin in Selma. Uncle Martin, that's what her children call him. There's Rosa Parks. There's her husband with Lyndon Johnson as LBJ signs the Civil Rights Act. There's Juanita marching, holding signs, singing songs. Every step of the way, from Montgomery to Memphis, the Abernathys and the Kings walked hand in hand. And when Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was shot on the balcony of the Lorraine Motel, it was Ralph who lovingly held his dying friend's head. click link for the rest of the article. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rincewind Posted August 7, 2007 Share Posted August 7, 2007 Michael Vick is black. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCsportsfan53 Posted August 7, 2007 Author Share Posted August 7, 2007 Michael Vick is black. Thank you for that poignant, hard hitting, in depth anaylsis of the article. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonard Washington Posted August 7, 2007 Share Posted August 7, 2007 Michael Vick is black. congrats...tell him what he wins Charlie....daa da daaa dooo dada Seriously, I didn't read all of it but in my opinion its too difficult to connect racism to this case. I believe the same groups who try to connect it to rap music/hiphop culture are of the same mind of those who think this is all about race. Some people just look for excuses too much without seeing what happened right in front of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grhqofb5 Posted August 7, 2007 Share Posted August 7, 2007 Hmmm.... I was expecting this one to be posted much sooner. Let the games begin. :munchout: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonard Washington Posted August 7, 2007 Share Posted August 7, 2007 Hmmm.... I was expecting this one to be posted much sooner. Let the games begin.:munchout: :laugh: when will the mods start closing these race threads Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted August 7, 2007 Share Posted August 7, 2007 I had the pleasure of sitting on a task force for minority hiring in Atlanta with Mrs. Abernathy. She is one of the most intriguing, genuine, intelligent women I have ever met. And her feelings towards the treatment of Vick and well founded in her experiences. It's a great piece when limitted to that context. The issue I have is that it does not address those in the black community who know nothing about the past, have no connection to any mistreatment by authorities but still grasp onto the idea that this is a black people versus establishment situation. It's a lazy excuse for them to blame someone else for their problems. People like Mrs Abernathy have every reason and earned the right to question the reasons behind this maelstrom. The average Joe at McDs doesnt get that luxury. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helptheSKINS Posted August 7, 2007 Share Posted August 7, 2007 Vick is an embarrasment to what this woman and others like her went through. This case is about dog fighting. I white man would have been arrested as well. This is not a race issue, it's a "I'm too stupid to realize this is not the right thing to be involved with" issue. It's that simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
megared Posted August 7, 2007 Share Posted August 7, 2007 I had the pleasure of sitting on a task force for minority hiring in Atlanta with Mrs. Abernathy. She is one of the most intriguing, genuine, intelligent women I have ever met. And her feelings towards the treatment of Vick and well founded in her experiences.It's a great piece when limitted to that context. The issue I have is that it does not address those in the black community who know nothing about the past, have no connection to any mistreatment by authorities but still grasp onto the idea that this is a black people versus establishment situation. It's a lazy excuse for them to blame someone else for their problems. People like Mrs Abernathy have every reason and earned the right to question the reasons behind this maelstrom. The average Joe at McDs doesnt get that luxury. There isn't a sense of anyone's problems being blamed on this case. It's a sense of something (albeit bad) being made into an atrocity because of media perception. Geez he's accused of being involved...not being the canine grim reaper. And as a group of people that have seen their own go through situations like this repeatedly... Would this trial have been nearly as big if there weren't people gunning for him maybe in part, because of his race? Notice nobody said 'all' people, but undoubtably there are some. She's not the only black person to observe things in her society and question them... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted August 7, 2007 Share Posted August 7, 2007 There isn't a sense of anyone's problems being blamed on this case. It's a sense of something (albeit bad) being made into an atrocity because of media perception. Geez he's accused of being involved...not being the canine grim reaper. And as a group of people that have seen their own go through situations like this repeatedly...Would this trial have been nearly as big if there weren't people gunning for him maybe in part, because of his race? Notice nobody said 'all' people, but undoubtably there are some. She's not the only black person to observe things in her society and question them... If the accused was Peyton Manning, the reaction would be identical in the press. And he IS being accused of the being the ringleader, not just a participant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raub Posted August 7, 2007 Share Posted August 7, 2007 I read it yesterday. It's a good article, but it's a real reach. Connecting Ron Mexico to the Civil Rights movement is doing the latter a serious injustice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riggo-toni Posted August 7, 2007 Share Posted August 7, 2007 Would this trial have been nearly as big if there weren't people gunning for him maybe in part, because of his race? ABSOLUTELY!!!! The outrage and sensationalising of this case is completely unrelated to race - it's all about people's outrage and disgust with animal cruelty, particularly cruelty to man's best friend. If Tony Romo sits to pee, for example, had done the same, the reaction might be even somewhat more visceral, since critics would be free of any concerns of racism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan T. Posted August 7, 2007 Share Posted August 7, 2007 Would this trial have been nearly as big if there weren't people gunning for him maybe in part, because of his race? Notice nobody said 'all' people, but undoubtably there are some. The story has become even bigger than it already was because race has been injected into it. But the fact remains that Michael Vick, one of the biggest star athletes on the American horizon, has been implicated in a sleazy criminal enterprise. Replace Michael Vick with Brett Favre or Peyton Manning, and the story is still huge. The element of race gets taken out, but the media coverage doesn't get dimished much, if any. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
megared Posted August 7, 2007 Share Posted August 7, 2007 If the accused was Peyton Manning, the reaction would be identical in the press.And he IS being accused of the being the ringleader, not just a participant. I'd like to think you're right...but history suggests otherwise. I don't want to really expand on that because making observations somehow gets skewed into 'thinking the man is against you'. It's more of an attitude of "there's another one"...not that "he gets unconditional support because he's black" from my perspective. What he was accused of doing was very stupid, possibly outlines further issues he has. Do I think it should stop him (or hypothetically Brett Favre, Peyton Manning, or anyone else) from making a living? No, especially when it wasn't for the money, wasn't for the interstate commerce...he wasn't trying to commit federal crimes (well gambling's 1)...and if it was the state pursuing these charges he'd probably just get fined. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rincewind Posted August 7, 2007 Share Posted August 7, 2007 I'd like to think you're right...but history suggests otherwise. I don't want to really expand on that because making observations somehow gets skewed into 'thinking the man is against you'. It's more of an attitude of "there's another one"...not that "he gets unconditional support because he's black" from my perspective. What he was accused of doing was very stupid, possibly outlines further issues he has. Do I think it should stop him (or hypothetically Brett Favre, Peyton Manning, or anyone else) from making a living? No, especially when it wasn't for the money, wasn't for the interstate commerce...he wasn't trying to commit federal crimes (well gambling's 1)...and if it was the state pursuing these charges he'd probably just get fined. Did you really just say he should be excused because he wasn't trying to commit federal crimes? So intent is all that matters? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
megared Posted August 7, 2007 Share Posted August 7, 2007 Did you really just say he should be excused because he wasn't trying to commit federal crimes? So intent is all that matters? Did I say excused? Did you realize there wasn't federal felonies in place for dogfighting before May 3rd (after his investigation got underway)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rincewind Posted August 7, 2007 Share Posted August 7, 2007 Did I say excused? Did you realize there wasn't federal felonies in place for dogfighting before May 3rd (after his investigation got underway)? And...? If he did it he should be tried to the fullest extent of the law. Are you going to argue he should be grandfathered when talking about dog fighting? Screw that, if he did it, I hope he rots in an 8x10. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raub Posted August 7, 2007 Share Posted August 7, 2007 Did I say excused? Did you realize there wasn't federal felonies in place for dogfighting before May 3rd (after his investigation got underway)? Get real dude. He is accused of crimes that involved interstate trafficking. That has always been a federal offense. They didn't write new laws just for Ron Mexico. :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
megared Posted August 7, 2007 Share Posted August 7, 2007 Get real dude. He is accused of crimes that involved interstate trafficking. That has always been a federal offense. They didn't write new laws just for Ron Mexico. :doh: Did I imply that either? I do however think that it's extreme for the life of a human to be taken away over dogs. No law put into place somehow will change that belief. I'm guessing that's fairly routine huh, guys rotting in jail (8x10 no less)...for dogfighting? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rincewind Posted August 7, 2007 Share Posted August 7, 2007 Did I imply that either?I do however think that it's extreme for the life of a human to be taken away over dogs. No law put into place somehow will change that belief. I'm guessing that's fairly routine huh, guys rotting in jail (8x10 no less)...for dogfighting? So people should just be allowed to treat animals anyway the see fit with not fear of legal repercussion? That's pretty ****ing sick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raub Posted August 7, 2007 Share Posted August 7, 2007 Did I imply that either? Yes, you did imply that. You said "Did you realize there wasn't federal felonies in place for dogfighting before May 3rd (after his investigation got underway)?" First of all, the federal felonies are for interstate trafficking, not dog fighting. Secondly, why would there be charges in place before the investigation? I'm no detective, but I'm pretty sure the purpose of an investigation is to gather evidence and decide if there is enough to bring charges on the accused. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
megared Posted August 7, 2007 Share Posted August 7, 2007 And...? If he did it he should be tried to the fullest extent of the law. Are you going to argue he should be grandfathered when talking about dog fighting? Screw that, if he did it, I hope he rots in an 8x10. He wasn't charged under the new dogfighting laws because of the timing of the law change. He's been indicted under violation of the Travel Act. If he's the big fish in that nationwide, underground dogfighting scene, cool. But with all the gov't leaks...the more I get a picture of guys sitting in an interrogation room, saving their own butts, saying "I'll get you someone big if you get me a deal." I want them to prove that Vick was a MAJOR player if he's to be punished at all. If not...jailtime really is excessive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
megared Posted August 7, 2007 Share Posted August 7, 2007 Yes, you did imply that. You said "Did you realize there wasn't federal felonies in place for dogfighting before May 3rd (after his investigation got underway)?"First of all, the federal felonies are for interstate trafficking, not dog fighting. Secondly, why would there be charges in place before the investigation? I'm no detective, but I'm pretty sure the purpose of an investigation is to gather evidence and decide if there is enough to bring charges on the accused. If he committed the crimes they're investigating any point in time after May 3rd, he probably would've caught those charges too. There's nothing to say that they don't charge him, yaknow since they have a superceding indictment and all. You tell me where I implied that the Federal Government made up new laws to get Mike Vick. The laws were changed after a huge bust in Ohio (back in March or April) where they really couldn't prosecute the guys to the extent they wanted to. They had to wait for the state to come in and use THEIR felony laws to punish they people. My point in saying what you quoted is that...dogfighting over the history of humanity went from being accepted by kings/elite...to being outlawed (but not enforced)...to being enforced w/ lax laws...to becoming an atrocity that should stop someone from ever living their life again.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted August 7, 2007 Share Posted August 7, 2007 Did I imply that either?I do however think that it's extreme for the life of a human to be taken away over dogs. No law put into place somehow will change that belief. I'm guessing that's fairly routine huh, guys rotting in jail (8x10 no less)...for dogfighting? I think the maximum he can get is 6 years. He won't be rotting away in jail for the rest of his life. If he's guilty and people don't want to give him a job in football as a result, well, who's fault is that? But I sincerely doubt he'll live the rest of his life in the poor house. It's an interesting article. But I don't think it applies. The shadow of the past can only go so far before it has to begin to fade. If Vick is guilty, he's a criminal. He's not black or white or an athlete. He's a criminal. And it seems that some folks would rather excuse that. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rincewind Posted August 7, 2007 Share Posted August 7, 2007 He wasn't charged under the new dogfighting laws because of the timing of the law change. He's been indicted under violation of the Travel Act.If he's the big fish in that nationwide, underground dogfighting scene, cool. But with all the gov't leaks...the more I get a picture of guys sitting in an interrogation room, saving their own butts, saying "I'll get you someone big if you get me a deal." I want them to prove that Vick was a MAJOR player if he's to be punished at all. If not...jailtime really is excessive. Well, obviously if he is innocent he shouldn't see jail time - I made sure I wrote a few times 'if he did it...' I just take issue with your sounding like people involved in dogfighting shouldn't see jail time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.